Laura Crimaldi v. Dedham, Town of - Police Department (SPR 20160533)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Shawn A. Williams Supervisor ofR ecords August 3, 2016 SPR16/533 Mr. Michael d'Entremont, Chief Dedham Police Department 600 High Street Dedham, MA 02026 Dear Chief d'Entremont: I have received the petition of Laura Crimaldi, of the Boston Globe, appealing the response of the Dedham Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66 § 1 O(b ); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2). Specifically, Ms. Crimaldi requested a log of all internal affairs investigations conducted by the Department from 2013 to present, all internal affairs records regarding three (3) specifically identified employees and all records regarding the resignation of a specifically identified employee. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10(c); 950 C.M.R. 32.08(4). "Public records" is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any town of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10 ( c); see also District Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response a written, good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(a); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(2) (where cost of complying with a OneAshburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 · (617) 727-2832 ·Fax (617) 727-5914 www.sec.state.ma.us/pre

Chief of Police Michael d'Entremont SPR16/533 Page 2 August 3, 2016 request for public records is expected to exceed ten dollars ($10.00), custodian of records shall provide written good faith estimate). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. To assist in requesting and responding to requests for public records please refer to our publication, A Guide to the Massachusetts Public Records Law. This document is available on the Internet, free of charge, at http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/prepdf/guide.pdf. Attorneys on my staff are available during regular business hours to answer general questions regarding the Public Records Law. In addition, members of my staff will visit a records custodian in person to conduct training workshops on the Public Records Law upon request. Please contact my office directly at the telephone number provided in this determination for further information. Department response You provided a responsive log of internal affairs investigations conducted by the Department for the responsive period, as well as certain other records. You explained that the Department only had records responsive to one (1) of the identified officers related to internal affairs investigations. As for the employee for which the Department possesses responsive records you provided a copy oftwo records related to that employee's resignation from the Department. You denied Ms. Crimaldi' s request for internal affairs records and portions of other responsive records associated with the resignation of that employee citing several exemptions to the Public Records Law, including the personnel rules exemption, privacy exemption and statutory exemptions to the Public Records Law. G. L. c. 4, § 7 (26) (a), (b), (c); G. L. c. 6, § 167-178B (Criminal Offender Record Information). It is important to note that records that are the product of a police department internal affairs investigation are public records, subject to redaction. See Worcester Telegram & Gazette v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 1 (2003); subsequent review denied by the Supreme Judicial Court. It is also important to note that neither the status of the citizen complainant nor the outcome of the investigation is relevant in determining whether such records are public. See Leeman v. Cote, 21 Mass. L. Rep. 411 (2006). The Appeals Court in Worcester held that officers' reports, witness interview summaries, and the internal affairs report were not part of a "personnel file or information" exempt from disclosure under Exemption (c), as these documents related to the workings and determinations of the internal affairs process whose quintessential purpose is to inspire public confidence. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp., 58 Mass. App. Ct. at 7. Other than citing the exemptions you provided no explanation as to why such records should be withheld in their entirety without redaction, other than to state that "the matters at

Chief of Police Michael d'Entremont SPR16/533 Page 3 August 3, 2016 issue relate directly to an ongoing criminal case." You did not provide information related to that criminal case, such as a docket number. Accordingly, I find the Department has failed to meet its burden in withholding responsive records from disclosure. Order I find the Department has failed to rebut the presumption that the withheld records are public records, subject to redaction. Accordingly, the Department is hereby ordered to review Ms. Crimaldi's request and provide Ms. Crimaldi with a response to her request, prepared in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of this response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. cc: Ms. Laura Crimaldi